Search DemosPoli

FROM THE EDITORS:
As suggested bya few readers, it is
perhaps necessary to clear up a few things from the previous article on the
futility of the left-right dichotomy and the rise of a new international
political elite. It is important to stress that this ‘new order’, as manifested
in the centralization and concentration of political power by a select few in
office, is not the result of some 'grand conspiracy' hatched by the powerful to
obtain world-domination, rather it is only the result of human nature itself.

It
is almost an innate quality of every political being that he or she grabs every
opportunity to further personal power and influence. When we allow a select
group of individuals free reign over political and economic issues we should thus
not be surprised that such abuses arise. The fault lies only with us, as more
often than not we allow these abuses to pass by unnoticed.

United States Capitol (photo: ingfbruno)

It
is also true that many of those enhancing their own power are convinced they
are helping the people as a whole, whether through the popular political belief
that the people cannot decide for themselves and need guidance, or, as sadly
seems most often the case today, out of a wishful thinking, emboldened by
vested-interest economists, that spending massive amounts of money on popular
projects not only increases their own popularity but also benefits the economy
as a whole for future generations, rather than – as is the sad reality –
impoverishing them.

Too
many don't seem capable of appreciating that, like was said of the British
Empire, this institutional takeover has actually happened in "a fit of
absence of mind". Yet, as we know that almost all top-down plans fail, it
should be no surprise that even the imposition of top-down control on the
economy and populace will have arisen not out of some top-down conspiracy, but
from the aggregate of semi-conscious, individual harmful decisions that our
political institutions were not robust to.

The
idea that this is not the result of our human missteps but rather some kind of
grand conspiracy is dangerous indeed. Firstly, it suggests that a top-down
conspiracy must be fought with alternative top-down measures, more iatrogenic
regulations, or the idea that a simple solution like wealth confiscation or
simply changing the people in power (electing a different president, say) will
be enough to stop this malaise. Instead this will at best do nothing, at worst
make the institutions even less robust to errors. Secondly, it tends to
categorise people into "conspirators" and those who do not partake,
or the "1%" versus the "99%" (or indeed, "left"
versus "right"), ignoring the irregularities in such superficial notions,
and thus unfairly penalising or accusing groups who are not guilty. This leads
to further division and mistrust, only deepening the culture of divide.

There
are of course some people who do actively hold the people in contempt and
deliberately work against them, and their effects on the system as a whole are
probably scalable, but this still misses the main point. Ask most government
regulators, bureaucrats, subsidised CEOs, or economics professors whether he
believes in a simple, robust, ethically sound approach, and he will say yes -
and genuinely believe it. He will only fail to apply it to his own craft - the
temptation to self-serve, both materially and intellectually, is too great. Paradigmatic
is the CEO of AIG who, under criticism for his huge bonuses, quoted "Atlas
Shrugged" to argue that business leaders were unappreciated. He failed to
remember that the villains in "Atlas Shrugged" were CEOs getting
government bail-outs.

Houses of Parliament, UK

Many
individual regulators also believe that they are helping the economy becoming
more ethical by introducing a whole series of limitations on businesses and
their dealings, though – as seen in the video in the article below – many of
the most powerful and famous amongst them are themselves backed by vested interest groups or on the board of some business benefiting from the regulations. Those
regulators that are free of vested interests, however, and who really want to
protect the economy and the population as a whole, often fail to see that by
creating more complex regulations they are only exacerbating the problem. While
the large businesses with their political clout and armies of lawyers will
unavoidably find some way to game the system, such complex regulation only
makes it more difficult for smaller businesses to rise and compete with the
already established giants, thus preventing the rise of diversity and impoverishing the market as a
whole. Increased regulation also serves to put more power in the hands of the
regulator (i.e. the government), in which the regulator without political
incentives and vested interests is, as we have seen, very much the exception.
In other words, they are only paving the path for more excesses.

As
said in the article below: ‘Though their intentions are
commendable, the thought that any political organ – something which exists only
to support certain political interests – could ever objectively govern the
economy in the interest of all, is sadly vain hope.Only if every single individual were
directly represented in government, would the government realistically protect
every individual’s interests in economic policy. This is not possible through
any sort of indirect representation, or financial committee. It is, however,
exactly what defines the free market.’

Ultimately,
if everyone believes in robust and ethical actions, but are self-serving and
fragile in their own, then the whole system will be fragile and self-serving,
without any conscious guidance. The important point it to stop these misdeeds
at the source, not counter their effects with some other fragile self-serving
top-down solution. Take power away from bureaucrats. Keep regulation simple so
that it can't be abused. Let companies fail. Don't subsidise them so they are
too big in the first place. Pay heed to the assumptions and vested interests of
academic economic models, and their openness to error, rather than just the
results of such models. Do not leverage to the point that economies need to be
"managed" simply in order to pay down the debt. And don't give those
who have shown themselves to be arrogant and self-serving more power and
rewards!

Through centuries of vague
characterization, deliberate misrepresentation and manipulation of our innate tendency to consider
the world through an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ narrative, society in the West has
become heavily dichotomized. Indeed, we
are living in a time when political divisions, enmities and feuds are no longer
limited to localities or individuals, but carry on, throughout time, from one
generation to the next, bringing with them a premade set of ideals, hopes and
beliefs, as well as vilification of the other side. In this post I will briefly
argue why the use of terms such as ‘left’ and ‘right’-wing, as well as most
terms like ‘progressive’ or ‘conservative’, are not only futile in reasoned
political debate but actually actively harmful and obstructive.

The
History

In the early days of
the French revolution, the “Assemblée
nationale” – the transitional government – was divided into those in favour
of the revolution, and those in support of the old monarchy. The
revolutionaries sat to the left, whereas those in support of the old order were
seated on the right. Though during the days of executions and arrests the right
side was often abandoned, the seating arrangement survived in later
governmental structures. In the successors of the Assemblée, the so-called ‘innovators’ were nearly always seated on
the left side and the so-called ‘defenders of the constitution and faith’ on
the right.

The Assemblée nationale

The idea of a
‘left-right’ division fitted well into the storm of political ideals overtaking
Europe in the late 18th and 19th century after the French Revolution. The notion of a world-wide class struggle
between the people as a whole and its ‘higher orders’ grew exponentially. And indeed, in those days there were actual entrenched
political classes: the aristocracy still dominated the political landscape of Europe and
the population as a whole had very little say in government. Following the
seating arrangement of the French parliament, the term ‘left-wing’ became known
as ‘progressive’ – consisting mainly out of ‘commons’ – whereas ‘right-wing’
became known as ‘conservative’ – consisting mainly of the aristocracy.

Road
to Nowhere

Whatever original
usefulness these terms might have had for the characterization of different
sides during the French revolution, as well during the subsequent European struggle
against the aristocracy, I need not point out to anyone familiar with the
current political landscape that the terms have long since lost their meaning. With
the disappearance of an actual aristocracy with political power, the terms are
now used in a myriad of different ways, with a myriad of different – often
contradictory – meanings. In our current representative democracies, not one
major party proposes a reinstatement of aristocratic rule (though some propose
bureaucratic, or ‘technocratic’ rule) and all sides – at least nominally but
hopefully also genuinely – believe in the right of the people to govern
their own affairs.

The ‘right-wing’ as it
existed during the French revolution, therefore, no longer exists. Nor does, in
fact, the French revolutionary left, as it was a mixed bag of what later would
become defined as liberalism (meant in the original interpretation, not the new
American one), socialism and centrism. Indeed, both the
current ‘left’ and ‘right’ were born from what was ‘liberal’ opposition to
traditional aristocratic rule. Really, what we now see as the difference
between left- and right-wing politics is a split following the division in the mid-19th
century between capitalist and anti-capitalist movements. The fact that
this is where the real modern division gets its first inception is best illustrated by the fact that ‘classical
liberalism’ is deemed to be right-wing, whereas ‘social liberalism’ is deemed to be left-wing.

Inauguration of the Statue of Liberty

It is a fact that is
not often pointed out, but worth remembering, that both left- and right-wing
movements, despite disagreement on how to run the economy, thus stem from a
common plight. Indeed, modern conservatism,
very often anti-statist and anti-government, has very
little in common with oligarchic 'conservative' factions of 19th century Europe, yet still uses its obsolete name.

Divide
et Impera

Of course one could
argue that the terms have evolved with time, and though none of the original premises
hold true, the populace generally understands what is meant by ‘left’ and
‘right’-wing by observing political practice. As we will see below, however,
this does not seem to be the case at all.

A very in-depth
study conducted over the course of multiple years by the London School of
Economics as part of the official British
Election Studies found that, when asked to place themselves on the left-right
scale, just
over 18% of voters did not know what ‘left-wing’ meant. Of the remaining 82%,
each gave roughly two answers. From all of these answers only 59 per cent could
be said to ‘correspond unambiguously with even a broad-based conception of what
political scientists mean by ‘left’ (that is, answers which said that ‘left’
meant in favour of working-class, poor, ordinary working person or against the
middle class, the rich or business; answers which associated the left with
Communism, Marxism, socialism, the Labour Party, or against Conservatism,
fascism, etc.)’ [Heath and Lalljee 1996: 98].

The study also noted
that ‘among the most common answers (given 45 times) were ones which defined
the left as people who are extreme, dogmatic or militant but without any
mention of the content of their extremism’ [Heath and Lalljee 1996: 99] – a
fact, I would argue, clearly illustrative of the divisive nature of the
left-right divide. On what was meant by ‘right-wing’ politics, there was again
just under 20% of respondents that did not know the answer. The remainder gave about
1.2 answers per person, of which only 58% corresponded closely to the political
scientist’s concept’ [Ibid].

This political confusion is fundamental to why the status-quo, maintained mainly by power-hungry self-styled 'centrists', holds such sway. Misunderstanding and
mischaracterization from both sides, as well as party-political divisions, have
kept power out of the hands of the people as a whole and into
the hands of those few who, above all, desire political office. We are living
in the age of the establishment, witnessing the attempts, through
ever-growing national, supra-national and global governments, to create a
new kind of ‘elite’. Indeed, while the ‘protectors of the people’ (as both
sides like to characterize themselves) are busy in-fighting, we see the birth of a new political aristocracy
in Brussels, London, Washington and elsewhere.

Methods
define the Results

The motto of this establishment
– often consisting of self-styled ‘technocrats’ – is simple: ‘people cannot
think for themselves, therefore we must decide what is best for them.’ This,
they say, is proven by data such as the study quoted above: people do not know what
they want, or what is the best way to go about to achieve it.

Indeed, much previous
research done in the line of the paper above (most notably Butler and Stokes'
seminal work) seemingly observed the general population to be perpetually fickle
in its allegiances and beliefs – often displaying little to no knowledge of the
issues, voting based on arbitrary notions such as who their family 'always voted for’ or which politician's personality they liked. These studies then often ended by noting that the only conclusion one could draw was to ‘interpret the
fluidity of the public’s view as an indication of the limited degree to which
attitudes are formed towards even the best-know policy issues.’ [Butler and
Stokes 1974:281] Such sentiments remained dominant amongst political scientist
for decades, and were very convenient for those in favour of more
centralization and less direct popular involvement.

The paper quoted above, however, [Heath and Lalljee 1996] explored the
possibility that the problem actually was not the intelligence or
involvement of the general populace but rather the models used to map political
preference. Their paper was not the first paper to identify problems with the two-dimensional mapping of political opinions [see Luttbeg and
Gant 1985; Himmelweit et al. 1985; Heath 1986a; Fleishman 1988]. In their research,
however, they did not only inquire into the flaws of the model, but also
demonstrated that, when using different models, people in fact appear
consistent in their beliefs and ideals, as well as heavily involved in political issues.

Rather than using the
one axis left-right identification, they offered another, that of authoritarian
vs. libertarian. But most notably, they chose to ask people about specific
political beliefs rather than just party-political issues or current affairs. This
is crucial, as it serves to briefly break through the bonds of the partycratic
politics dominating our modern representative democracies, and tap right
into the personal beliefs and hopes of the individuals.

The study asked the
interviewees for their opinions on things like big business, freedom of speech,
tradition and the legal system. and then asked the same group the same question
again one year later. Subsequently they used these specific issues to predict how the interviewees would vote in particular elections.

Unsurprisingly, this model
yielded a stunning consistency in political beliefs and hopes, noting that
‘political attitudes are not random and unstable, neither are they constrained
along a single left-right dimension, instead they are structured within a value
framework involving dimensions of both left-right and libertarian-authoritarian
beliefs and possibly several others. When measured suitably these values appear
to form consistent, stable and consequential elements of British political
culture.’ [Heath and Lalljee 1996: 109]

Indeed, the general
uneasiness of the population in placing itself on the political scale, as well
as their fickleness in supporting and opposing different parties and groups, is
not a result of any supposedly inherent lack of knowledge, but rather of the
unyielding and contradictory categorizations they are forced into.

The
Science of filling pots with no bottom

One way of dealing
with the left-right difficulties has been to create political spectrum maps:
various graphs – sometimes simple, sometimes complicated – provide a series of different
parameters. Indeed, the study by Heath and Lalljee
used, as mentioned above, an ‘authoritarian’ vs. ‘libertarian’ graph. ‘Left’ and ‘right’ is purely seen as an economic issue, whereas social and idealistic preferences are mapped
differently. This is similar to the so-called ‘political compass’ (illustrated above), which is now used
widely – especially on the internet – to ascertain political stances.

Danaids

The
problem with such multi-axis models (and there are a lot of them!) is that they
are all, like the Danaids in Greek mythology, trying to fill a jar with no
bottom. Even when defining left and right on purely economic terms, we encounter
many problems. Though it has often been noted that the extreme left and extreme
right, both authoritarian and statist, have much in common [Eysenck 1981,McClosky
and Chong 1985], many parties which are generally considered to be right-wing (for
example the most ‘extreme’ right-wing party in my native Belgium) favour
interventionist economic measures. Equally, many ‘right wing’ parties, such as
the Tories in the UK, have scores of Keynesian or state-interventionists among
their ranks. While in theory such a graph – identifying individuals or parties
as one of either ‘authoritarian or libertarian’ and ‘left or right’ – would work, the words
‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ are simply not used like this in practice, and therefore
these graphs, which purportedly are to be a simplification of political
reality, prove more often to be wrong than right.

Furthermore, the old
idea of ‘conservative’ vs. ‘progressive’, which is still widely used in the
characterization of right vs. left wing, also becomes useless if understood in economic terms like the graph
above – even contradictory. Whereas most economic policy today is Keynesian
(we’re all Keynesians now!), those who are generally labelled ‘fiscally
conservative’ are the ones who want to radically change, limit and decrease government involvement in fiscal matters, whereas those who are generally characterized as ‘progressive’ want to ‘conserve’
and further current economic models, arguing for maintained belief in
Keynesian socio-economic systems as well as resistance to new impulses of austerity, as prompted by the
world-wide financial crisis.

Opposed
Allies

Indeed, a quick look
at one of the main issues that currently dominates Western political debate, namely how to combat
the financial crisis and failing economies of the West, again reveals the futility, but also straight-out harmfulness, of
such a left-right divide. The left- and right-wing narratives seem, at first
sight, strongly opposed: while the former largely blames the crisis on the
extravagances and moral corruption of the banks, bankers and large
multinationals, the latter consider high tax-burden and mismanaged social
policies as the main culprits. The solutions proffered are also radically
different: one side wants to heavily regulate the banking sector (carrying
slogans saying ‘Capitalism has Failed!’) the other proposes lower taxes and
cutting social expenditure.

Indeed, it has come to
this: the left considers the left-right divide as one of big business and rich
elites versus the masses (the so-called 99%), whereas the right considers the right-left
divide as one of big government and political elites versus the masses. Both
sides, believing they are defending the masses – as their ‘liberal’ roots
necessitate – are attacking
different symptoms of the same disease. Yet the supposed political divide stops
them from recognizing this. The disease is this: big business CEOs do not
belong in government positions, and government officials do not belong on the
governing boards of banks. Both sides recognize this, however one side blames
the government, the other the bankers. But above all ... they blame each other.

View
the difference

To illustrate this,
and to end this brief foray in some of our oldest political
terms, I have picked two videos – one from a left-wing background, one from a
right-wing background – which talk about the financial crisis. First, quite a
famous documentary, generally identified as ‘left-wing’, called ‘Inside Job’. In this documentary, though speckled
with typical ‘capitalism has failed’ and ‘the free market doesn’t
work’ narratives, the film-makers' research led them to the problem that so many of
the people responsible for the crisis were paid by, backed by, or even working
for, the government. A large part of the documentary is spent pointing out that many of the very same bankers which can be held responsible for the crisis
now occupy high positions in government.

A brief promotional clipcan be found here, though the full documentary is of course copyrighted (go and watch it!):

The second clip, by
commentator and businessman Peter Schiff , shows Peter Schiff attending the
Occupy Wall Street protests when they were still in full swing, carrying a sign
reading ‘I am the one percent, let’s talk’. Though both
sides disagree on who exactly is the instigator of the financial troubles, near the end of the video (if you only watch two minutes, watch this) both sides seem to agree
on the problem, and invite each other to join their ranks. Strikingly, it ends by many of the Occupy movement expressing that they do not think capitalism is the problem.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Indeed, to briefly voice my personal opinion, ‘Inside Job’, though brilliant in bringing to the
fore some of the problems in our current system, sadly, because of the party-political façades and the dichotomy described above, falls into the exact same pitfall which has led to those responsible for the
crisis being in government. Seeing the negative effects the regulators have
had on our economy, the documentary pushes for more regulation and more ‘oversight’. Though their intentions are commendable, the thought that any political organ – something which exists only to support
certain political interests – could ever objectively govern the economy in the
interest of all, is sadly vain hope.

Only if every single
individual were directly represented in government, would the government realistically
protect every individual’s interests in economic policy. This is not possible through any sort of indirect representation, or financial committee. It is, however, exactly
what defines the free market: every single individual’s choices and preferences having
a direct input, and it is the collective – made up of millions and
millions of individuals – that decides which businesses are prospering
and which aren’t. Not some bureaucrat with vested interests. As long as we make sure
human rights and dignity are maintained and enforced across the board, the free market is the most egalitarian way of organizing the economy possible. As said in the video above by the Occupy protester, no
monopoly can ever rise without government interference (also said by Hayek[1944] p. 48 onwards). Many have been
conditioned to hate the free market. In this way, when government involvement fails, the establishment can claim it was because there was too little of it (leading to situations where those that failed the banks subsequently sat in government). The free market is, however, the fairest tool we have to organize our economy: too bad it has never been tried.

Come
Together, Right Now

Taking a step back now
from personal opinion, let us get to the point: the only reason those groups of the population that identify themselves as variously left- and right-wing are seemingly at opposite sides of the debate on the financial crisis, is because of the façade meticulously built up by those in power over the past centuries. Though different groups may disagree on the way the crisis started, all recognize what the problem is. Yet rather than attacking the problem, we limit ourselves to attacking each other. What is more, the current debate on the economy is just one of a myriad of issues where similar circumstances hold. It is time to leave antagonizing speech and characterizations behind, as well as void terms that do not even describe our real hopes and dreams, and for once start conversing clearly and straightforwardly with each other. Only then, will democracy truly thrive.

In everyday speech and even in the media, the concepts of
free trade, free markets and light regulation are often used interchangeably,
with little appreciation for the key differences between them. Both their
supporters and detractors see them as part of a laissez-faire package grounded solely in the unwavering principle
of individual freedom. Yet the rationales for these concepts as the basis for
economic life are quite distinct, and need not draw only on a moral belief in
human freedom, but empirical observations and broader notions of fairness and
equality before the law.

Free Trade

Free trade is the notion that international trade should be
allowed without tariffs or restrictions – or taken in the broadest sense, that
trade should be permitted between humans on the same terms regardless of their
membership of different nations or any other groups.

Canary Wharf Skyline (photo by David Iliff)

The early advocates of free trade - Adam Smith and David
Ricardo prominent among them – tended to argue primarily in terms of its
empirical results – comparative advantage and fostering competitiveness. Whilst
this is doubtless a significant (though oft disputed) part of the rationale
behind free trade, I will not shy from saying that for me it is the moral
argument that is most important.

There are two primary ways in which restrictions on free
trade violate ethical notions of human freedom and dignity. The first is to
subordinate the will of the individual to that of the “community”, membership
of which is rarely chosen but bestowed through the serendipity of birth. In
spite of what many opposed to free trade say, it is impossible to “force” free
trade on a person – rather the opposite, that force can only be used to deny a
person the right to free trade. This is perhaps not so much of a problem for
those “collectivists” who treat collectives as bodies with superior moral
standing to individuals.

Most collectivists (at least in the West) are less inclined
to dispose of the moral concept of human equality. Yet restrictions on free
trade do exactly that, for the “community” in question is not mankind as a
whole, but rather the nation. Given that nations have been for the most part
arbitrarily defined through the whims of history, mostly by kings and
conquerors long dead, it is difficult to see how these can be given an
independent moral standing. If members of a different (perhaps poorer) nation
are denied the same rights in their relationship with you as those within your
own nation, in what way can it be said that all humans have an equal standing
in terms of social justice? Some humans are then clearly more equal than
others. One need only observe how quickly protectionist rhetoric introduces the
notion of “them” as opposed to “us” to see how the rights and desires of others
are soon devalued.

Free Market

If free trade deals with the question of “who”, then the free
market deals with the “how”. The core notion of the free market is that prices
and the distribution of goods should be set by supply and demand, and not by
fiat.

There is, of course, considerable debate over the definition
of the term, with many contending that a free market means freedom solely from
government interference, and that a free market is equivalent to laissez-faire. However, I would tend to
agree with the British classical economists from Smith onwards, who argued that
it does not matter whose fiat dictates prices – and as such, monopolistic or
monopsonistic markets cannot be characterised as truly free. For supply and
demand to work in determining price, competition on both sides is vital, and
thus a free market entails both a competitive system and the open access to
markets that facilitates this.

Afghan market

It is worth elaborating briefly on the difference between
moral and empiricist arguments for human freedom. Perhaps the best example is
the question of paternalism - whether society should be ordered and planned by
experts who know the best ways for us to live. The moralist might oppose this
on the grounds that such an expert would be denying us our right to exercise
our freedom as individuals. The empiricist would oppose this on the grounds
that no such experts exist.

Moral arguments in favour of human freedom are less
convincing if used on their own to justify free markets. Even the most ardent
libertarians would deny, for example, that it were a morally just situation if
a man dying of thirst freely gave up his life’s savings in exchange for water
from a monopolist provider. The crucial argument supporting the free market is
empiricist in nature, and relates directly to the competitive system, and its
building of what Hayek called “spontaneous order”.

Freely set prices are important because they incorporate all
the various pieces of disperse knowledge that different actors in an economy
have – knowledge that no expert alone could possibly have access to. These
prices then guide resources to be allocated in desirable ways for society – to
overcome shortages, improve quality, and identify new demands. The beauty of a
free market system is its ability to spontaneously deal with the very
complexity that socialists believe makes planning desirable, but which makes
planning ultimately hopeless.

Regulation

A free market need not be totally absent from regulation to
remain free. It is hard to argue that a well thought out regulation to protect
workers’ or consumers’ safety, for example, would on its own distort the method
by which prices are set. The damage done by regulations instead arises
primarily from two sources: inhibited innovation due to precautionary
restrictions, and the costs of excessive complexity.

Economies grow through a process of trial and error, through
the success and failure of new business ideas, scientific endeavours and
technological breakthroughs. It is in the realm of the untried and untested
that the greatest prospects for growth are to be found. It should therefore
follow naturally that regulations which prevent (or at least delay) new
endeavours are a deterrent to progress. There is, of course, a more profound
debate to be had here about the extent to which society wants to risk the
uncertainties and possible dangers that come with new developments (which I
will write about in more detail in a future post). Needless to say, of course,
that societies which opt for a stationary state always fail to satisfy
underlying desires for prosperity and opportunity, and are thus on the road to
decline.

Lange's 'Migrant Mother', symbol of the Great Depression

Yet it is perhaps the second problem of regulation that is
more insidious. Simply put, the cumulative effects of regulations are very
different from the addition of their individual costs and benefits. The
benefits of multiple regulations can often overlap, with diminishing returns
for each added layer of complexity. The cumulative costs, on the other hand,
generally exceed the sum of the individual costs, both from the additional need
to sort through the vast body of laws to identify which ones are in fact
relevant, and due to the far greater share of resources that must be put to
work in complying with official directives

The most damaging aspect of this complexity is that its
effects are not equally spread – the huge budgets and compliance departments of
large and powerful corporations are well equipped to deal with these burdens.
Not so the small business or aspiring entrepreneur. By adding an additional
hurdle to entry, large companies reap the benefits of less competition (and I
am here not even mentioning the hand they have in writing these regulations).
Yet the biggest beneficiaries are, of course, the lawyers, accountants and
bureaucrats who thrive on complexity.

Rather than arguing blindly over a false dichotomy between
regulation and de-regulation, I would like to see more discussion about the
fairness of regulations. Though President Obama recently talked about the need
for fairer regulations, in asking only whether regulations benefit the rich
over the poor he misses the crucial point. We should instead be asking whether they
favour any special interests at all over the community as a whole. For the
reasons above, fairness and simplicity go hand-in-hand – and rather than simply
asking whether regulations favour the poor or the rich, we should recognise
that an excessive number of regulations ultimately only favours the powerful.